Ted Cruz needs to explain to non-Evangelical voters that they need not fear him

Now that Ted Cruz, for the time being at least, is the front-runner, I’m starting to get emails from conservatives in Marin who are disturbed by his open expressions of Christian faith. Just like their Progressive neighbors, they’re worried about finding themselves in a theocracy. I therefore think Ted Cruz needs to start campaigning beyond the Evangelicals he’s courted. This requires him to say something along the following lines:

“Yes, I am a person of deep faith. My faith is the most important thing in my life. It informs my values and keeps me humble by reminding me every minute of every day that I am not the most important thing in the world.

“In addition to being a Christian, though, I am an American and a strict constitutionalist. I would never seek to impose my religion on others, although there is no doubt that my religion shaped my values.

“It’s because of my faith that I value life, liberty, and happiness. After all, my religion tells me that God gave us the gifts of life, individual freedom, and the capacity for joy.

“You can like or dislike the religious values that shaped me, but you should never worry that I will try to force my religion on you. The Founders, in their great wisdom, understood that there is no surer way to impose tyranny than to make government an arm of a church, temple, or mosque.”

I’m sure Cruz can come up with something better than that, but it’s a start. He really does need to assuage the fears of those who are not Evangelical Christians and are worried that they will be shut out of politics and the civic process.

Also, as a sort of random aside, I’m hearing from a lot of people that they don’t like it that Cruz is so masterful at plotting and planning. Pardon me for saying this, but Cruz doesn’t need to be anyone’s new best friend. He’s auditioning for the job of leader of the free world, and I’d like to think that he’s an adept planner and manipulator, who can handily deal with the world’s bad guys, and whose plans always keep America’s best interests at heart.

I’m someone who is lousy at both strategy and tactics — and believe me, the last thing you want in the White House is someone like me. You want someone who sees several plays ahead on the chess board and who (a) knows what moves to take to achieve his strategic goals and (b) has sufficiently mental flexibility to come up with new tactics if the original ones are no longer appropriate.

In other words, what a lot of people see as Ted’s failings — his faith and his almost too-sure grasp of strategy and tactics — are things I see as virtues in our President. The latter attribute will make him effective; the former will ensure that he never sees himself as a demigod.

Share this:

True.
But the ONLY reason he needs to do so, is because the old media have spent two generations demonizing Christians, part of their campaign to undermine us,

Vanessa Benoit

in my humble opinion, maybe the media demonizes them. sometimes. but also in my personal experience…they do a pretty dang good job all by themselves making themselves look terrible…

RobertArvanitis

By “they” do you mean all Christians, or just the splinter kind?
Because the media no only make no distinction. The media actively seeks out the most extreme examples, and uses them to assail all Christians. One “snake-handler” is held up as representative of all Christians.
And that’s why our greatest social ill today is fatherless families, which poisons the nation at the root.
In deeply cynical contrast, the lunatic excesses of a Bernie Sanders are never held against the liberals, even when the DNC cannot distinguish itself from socialism.

Vanessa Benoit

I think its safe to assume that I never mean “all christians” …or “all asian people” or “all anything” whenever i say anything about anybody. lol.
And well yeah but i think it also is reinforced by peoples personal biases…possibly based on terrible christians theyve actually encountered…and its unfortunate but for some reason we remember negative encounters more than positive ones. For example i could tell you a handful of the weird negative customers i had at a previous job……i cant recall the really good ones too well…just try it and you’ll see the bad customers stand out more. it takes a good deal of maturity to realize that you’re using one negative experience and painting all the people in a similar shade….but i think its survival instinct. We want to protect ourselves from these bad experiences and recoil so we want to avoid the group altogether. I encountered some very negative church experiences but it has required a great deal of growing up and personal growth for me to sit down and meet with a different pastor…with an open mind to insights they might have on something. That was hard to do and i went into it expecting that things might go awkwardly. but it didnt. it was great 🙂
anyway,
while you’re busy being offended….just bear in mind the pain people have been through…and how it feeds their biases…and forgive them for it.

RobertArvanitis

If your point is to tolerate different folks because we’ve
all had different experiences, quite so. We must be kind. And perhaps you do not mean all Christians.
But that’s the ax which the old-media grinds relentlessly. Therefore we must, as a community organizer once said “Punch back twice as hard.” Because the assaults from the left, backed by media and academia and Hollywood, will not cease.
The defining characteristic of the left agenda is that it is
never enough.
Here a caution to those on the left. As grievance classes multiply, the inevitable unintended consequences multiply, squared.
With so many classes of the offended, it is now impossible to set a rational hierarchy as to who takes priority over whom. We reach the inherent incoherence of left special interest dogma
For the left, liberal-urban-whites run smack into the
black-authentic-poor. Jews beat Christians when they sue over crèches. But Muslims beat Jews. Of course women beat men, except that blacks win against women
(sorry, Hillary). There is a “Lizzie Warren” exception, where a fake Indian beats all other real non-whites.
Returning to gender, homosexuals beat heterosexuals, until a transgender shows up. Since gender is based on
self-identification, it can trump any other card if the genderist uses enough adjectives. Hispanics take
precedence over blacks (too bad, obama-phone girl). None of this addresses the beiging of America via racial dilution. The answer there is to decide whatever best advances the narrative.
So half-white Obama is “black” while the half-black UCC murderer is “white.” It is a fluid concept – half-Thai Tiger Woods was black until his scandalous adulteries, divorce, and athletic failures, whereupon he lost his “black” card.Then there is the hilarious “white-hispanic” of the desperately confused NY Times.
This is the tribalism of the left, and it demands an
exquisitely refined hierarchy of special interest groups.
This process unavoidable generates over-determined equations and guarantees gross contradictions.
It will be fun to watch the chaos grow.
Want more proof? “New frontiers in the war on women: Is
It Sexual Assault to Force a Woman to Shower Alongside the Transgendered?”

Vanessa Benoit

i dont quite understand the assaults on “the left” speak….I myself have had a good deal of “leftist” views but I like to consider myself a moderate. and punch back twice as hard? how so? are you going to do it the way jesus did things? martyring himself for the righteous AND the unrighteous? or are you just going to act on human emotions of being defensive…
is your point to say that everyone has easily been oppressed by everyone? sure. thats not surprising. Lol. its called flawed humanity. I suppose I agree that tribalism is something we all ought to fight.

shower alongside transgendered…
i mean that could be a real tangent but id say is it really any more risky than showering nude alongside OTHER strangers u dont know? Just because they have your same lady bits so what? they could be a lesbian rapist i mean you don’t know. lol. Also i cant think of any situation in which anyone is forced to shower with strangers anyway…you willingly sign up for that if you’re using a gym…
if you mean at gyms in schools…our school had a few private shower stalls…with a few community stand alone ones that nobody used because everyone was shy….and many kids just…didnt shower.
So.
seems a nonissue to me.

RobertArvanitis

Go back to the start of our interaction. Our hostess Book said Cruz has to explain himself to Christians.
I said that’s only because the left and their media accomplices have demonized Christians for so many years. You, politely, suggested maybe Christians somehow deserved that.
So now, you and I can agree there are times when we render unto Caesar, here, in this world. And that means some rough-and-tumble politics.
When the left and their media demonize Christians, we return the favor by exposing the internal inconsistencies in their hierarchy of grievances.
Note that those grievances are not justified, merely a tool to “divide and conquer” and destroy American culture.
(See my earlier notes on failed socialism et seq.)

Vanessa Benoit

Mmm yes. I agree. with all of the above…except perhaps the grievances not being justified. If you mean to say the issues aren’t valid in any of themselves? I think many of the issues of oppression are indeed valid. But i think, when you laid out that list…..my impression was that…everyone is capable of being a dick to anyone. Do i think homosexuals are oppressed? yes. Does this give them a heiarchal standing of not being CAPABLE of oppressing a heterosexual? not at all. And I’m not sure that i’ve really gotten the impression that the left really thinks that but hey, i dont know who you’ve encountered lol. or perhaps im being naive lol. I think any time that someone oppresses someone else. it is indeed valid. But i might surmise to say that sometimes “being offended” by every little thing goes too far and starts turning into a victim mentality…..and that can happen to anyone…including christians who feel they’re being “persecuted” when i often feel they’re really not. perhaps depending on what we’re talking about. if a christian has a belief that makes them a douchey person…its all more douschey to say they’re being persecuted when others dont want to tolerate that belief…for example. I feel the real persecution more-so has to do with what christians face in other countries where they can be imprisoned or have their heads chopped off for being christian. thats persecution. but i digress.

RobertArvanitis

We are a humane and pluralistic society. So equal rights for all, yes.
Understand though, that what we call rights are negative rights, meaning “freedoms from…” No on can stop you from religious exercise, or free speech, or search you without warrant, or make you testify against yourself, or take your property without due process.
Alas, far too much of what some people call rights are really “affirmative demands.” You can’t say “I want free college” because that means “and someone else has to pay for it…” Every such “right” imposes demands on someone else.
Yes, someone can be homosexual, but they may not coerce someone else to bake you a cake. The first person’s right to be homosexual cannot take away the second person’s right to work for whomever THEY choose. Do we do that today? Yes, but it is wrong.
The left elevates the rights of some while deliberately trampling the rights of others.
That is why the left ends up in irreconcilable conflicts of grievance classes. Every time the left tries to “protect” one class, they necessarily damage someone else.
The only answer is to stick to the freedom-from protections of the Bill of Rights, and end the oppressive “rights” of some to coerce others.

Vanessa Benoit

errrrm. i’m gonna have to stop you right there. I mean, if you replace the word homosexual with the word black and say “black people cant make you bake a cake”….there was a time like this not very long ago and it was wrong. flat out wrong. Do i think people should lose their business for clinging so dogmatically to beliefs that jesus never necessarily said to do (in that i mean he didn’t say “only serve those whom you agree with”…if anything the whole love and serve your enemies is a big pot hole in their discrimination)? no i dont think they should lose their businesses but businesses should be penalized for discrimination against persons based on identity politics. If a customer puts a business or employee in danger of physical harm….or is causing a scene…yes…refuse service. But refusing service based on someones identity is not only wrong…its completely inconsistent as I’m pretty sure those same people aren’t refusing divorced people cakes. Its freakin ridiculous. In the end youre right its hard to stick to your own “rights” without infringing on other people. but it depends on people willing to compromise and meet in the middle where everyone can at least benefit. but people aren’t willing to do that anymore these days. cowards. maybe i shouldnt expect a country to be good at compromise if its divorce rates are so high….>.> compromise is something Americans have forgotten about

RobertArvanitis

Ms. Benoit.
Let’s take a stroll through history.
No private monopoly, constraint, or other irrationality
survives the free market.
Bold claim. Use the entire internet to see if you can find a counterexample. By “irrationality” I mean things like racism, sexism, and all the phobias. And as a side note, I’m especially good on Standard Oil, Sherman Antitrust and that entire era, if you’d like to try.
Money has no ideology and free markets always trade away all private inefficiencies. Always and everywhere.
It takes government, with its prior monopoly on violence, to enforce an irrationality like Jim Crow.
Trolley did NOT want to run extra cars. Restaurants did NOT want wasted counter space. Plumbers did NOT want to run extra pipes for “blacks only” fountains.
It took the full oppressive weight of armed Democrat government to enforce Jim Crow. Just as it took the
power of the “progressive” Democrat racist Woodrow Wilson to re-segregate the civil service and glorify “Birth of a Nation.”
That historical introduction is the justification for briefly abrogating our inalienable right of free association, as we did in 1964.
SINCE it was a Democrat government imposed wrong of Jim Crow, we chose a government enforced mandate to abrogate the right of association and demand everyone trade no matter the race. That was only a temporary remedy.
Regrettably, protecting race as a class in this brief instance led to a metastasizing of “protected classes.”
Today, we no longer need ANY protected classes.
As long as government is not putting its armed thumb on the scale, the free markets alone are the appropriate remedy for any and all allegations of discrimination.
So to make the maximal pronouncement, in America in 2016, no one can make you bake anyone else a cake – unless it is an armed and dirigiste regime enforcing unconstitutional and inappropriate mandates.
Glad to discuss.

Vanessa Benoit

also…socialism is not bad in all contexts….it rather depends on transparency of government…how much free market remains…and population size…to name a few factors. :3 read a very fascinating read about why switzerland was doing so well….and what works for one country wont work for all countries…socialism is a broad idea with many splinter ideas and therefore can’t be spoken of as good or bad so trivially without examining exactly what portrait of socialism we’re looking at….heh…just like the concept of “God” itself.

RobertArvanitis

Political socialism fails, everywhere and every time. Bar none.
A too-cute interlocutor might say “well it works in families.” Yes, because we protect not just ourselves but our relatives.
Thus the smaller and closer-knit a community, the higher the sliver of socialism that can be borne.
Switzerland has a strong, unified culture, as yet undamaged by Muslim migrants, for example. The Swiss can handle a bit more socialism.
But with our common culture under assault now for 50 years, we have substituted laws for principles, and grievance groups for neighbors.
In that environment, Sanders’ folly is completely intolerable.

Vanessa Benoit

With all due respect…I’m not always entirely sure if Sanders is being too idealistic or not…(thats hard for me to figure out because ill admit, im an idealist myself) but frankly, he’s the only candidate up there with a smidgen of compassion. Lord knows Hillary probably doesn’t have a soul. And then of course Trump, regardless of whether his policies would work or not, is very effective at stoking fear and anger and turning people against one another for further division. Bernie is the only force that wants to unite people and wants to call to fairness…get big money out of politics…and isn’t quite so divisive. Cruz, unfortunately, I also didn’t feel was very uniting and i think something we need right now with so much civil unrest, is someone who can look at different viewpoints and consider a multifaceted demographic….and cruz seemed to illustrate a failure to do so at many junctures. So, honestly, I appreciate sanders’ unifying political revolution and I think its started something important at least. And he’s the only person i have any mind to vote for. I don’t worship the guy lol. But i like him. but perhaps you can be more specific about his policies that you don’t like when critiquing him

RobertArvanitis

A well phrased question merits a thoughtful response.
Most politicians, most of the time, are interested in themselves and in reelection. So put personalities aside, and consider, objectively, what each might actually do in office.
Hillary would continue in the Obama mold of following Democrat dogma – telling others how to live; paying off allies; punishing enemies as with the IRS scandals. Very damaging to democracy.
Trump is a wild card, but as a businessman, he’d flip channels until something worked, So muddle through on economics. IF Trump tried to do anything unconstitutional, the entire media would finally do their job and push back.
In short, Hillary’s damage would be supported by bureaucrats and press, while the opposite is true for Trump.
As for Sanders, he would be Hillary without the self-interest, even more dangerous than her, both to the economy and to democracy.
See if you can find any example in history where (a) socialism ever worked, and (b) any example in history where socialism did NOT devolve into dictatorship.
People respond to incentives and price signals, Sanders would destroy both.

Vanessa Benoit

that was thoughtful…but you still didnt get specific about his policies. instead of talking about socialism broadly…can we get specific about his policies please?

RobertArvanitis

Glad to oblige, if you’ll spare a moment’s indulgence.
I begin with a broad assertion to offer you maximal
opportunity to disagree. Socialism fails, everywhere and every time. That is a debater’s dream, a big fat target if you care to disagree.
Please note that on Univision, Bernie would NOT discuss Venezuela’s failure. He said (pardon the translation) “I’m too busy running a campaign based on Venezuela’s failed socialism to discuss Venezuela’s failed socialism…”
But to gratify your request for specifics:
1. Bernie wants to spend a trillion on infrastructure.
But Obama ALREADY got a trillion and instead of fixing infrastructure, Obama wasted it to top up public union under-funding and pay off cronies with “green” “investments.” Does Solyndra ring a bell?
2. Speaking of “investing,” we must ask “what do we know and how do we know it?” In science, we know things by experiments that are replicable. In business, we know things by free markets, which set prices, NOT government bureaucrats. Wager – can you name an instance where a “government investment” actually worked?
3. Free tuition. Here I revert to my own personal heritage with a few Socratic questions. Is everyone able to benefit from the traditional liberal arts curriculum? Be honest. Is there an SAT score, IQ test, or other proxy for abstract reasoning that shows that is true? Within liberal arts, IS for example medieval poetry an appropriate major for more than a few young scholars? Is there any merit to the German system of apprenticeships that seeks to match people’s skills and interests to their work? Does Mike Rowe have a point that all honest work is worthy of our respect? Or is it an “Eloi and Morlocks” situation where you can be whatever you want, as long as the “elite” make all the important decision? Because if it’s the latter, you damned well better get yourself the elite credential rather than trust the likes of Katie Couric choose for you.
4. Does protectionism ever work, except for the union leaders?
5. Off shore tax havens. Do you believe governments should conspire against the public interest to coordinate tax policy? (That’s a monopoly more evil than OPEC.) Or should we allow free competition among high-tax-high-benefit nations versus low-tax-low benefit nations and let people choose, while high-tax-low-benefit nations are justifiably
erased by Darwin?
All this comes straight from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Bernie_Sanders.
If there is something specific about Bernie I’ve missed, let me know and I’ll be happy to eviscerate that as well.

Matt_SE

I see your point, Book, but Cruz shouldn’t have to do that. The problem is with the critics, not Cruz. After all, how do they think the theocracy is going to come about? 2/3rds of the Senate votes for it, including Democrats? The SCOTUS disregards the blatant violation of the Establishment Clause?

It’s preposterous.

ymarsakar

An Islamic theocracy is very plausible. Just look at French cities where Sharia law rules.

But of course, for the people worrying about a Christian theocracy, they could no more tell you how it would be done than they could tell you how 9/11 was a false flag op by the US.

They have no idea what they are talking about. After all, they are zombies. They are not master conspirators, nor can they, as I could, tell you the methods and means by which humans can be manipulated and deceived. They have no knowledge on this, no skill with it, thus nothing to offer, except the opinion of a zombie, who is a puppet of the people that’s really in charge.

MichaelAdams

Obama is the first President we have ever had who was not Christian. Did nay of his predecessors try to establish a theocracy?

SteveMGD

‘Ted Cruz needs to explain to non-Evangelical voters that they need not fear him.’
Are you serious? Why don’t those lazy non-Evangelical’s do a little research? Ted Cruz is my first choice for president and I’m an atheist.
There are some Christians I wouldn’t want in power but Ted Cruz is definitely not one of them.

ymarsakar

Remember that Democrat DC guy who stole the Pope’s water back a few months when the Pope came to visit, then drank the water and sprinkled it on his family? The funny thing about Leftists when they seek atonement, that guy may not even have been a Catholic.

All they have to do is pay Gore for his green credits and everything is forgiven, like the Papal indulgences Luther rebelled against.

As a matter of principle, SteveMGD, I complete agree with you. Rational people would understand that Ted Cruz is no threat. I’m a non-religious agnostic Jew who completely supports Sen. Cruz. But the reality is that for a lot of people — especially those who live in uber-liberal areas, as I do, or who are former Democrats, as I am — find Evangelicals scary. Even those these people aren’t totally rational on the subject, to the extent Sen. Cruz wants their votes, he would do well to acknowledge and address their concerns.

I’m not speaking for the pagan community. Much of the justification for “establishing” a Greater Pagan Community® is so that certain individuals can get the adoration and deference they believe they deserve.

I believe in ecology but I’m against environmentalism.

I believe individual freedom and personal responsibility works ever so much better than collectivism.

I think that what Christians call the Golden Rule is one of the most important roots of civilization. But I prefer another version, “Be excellent to each other. And party on, dudes!”

Now is that enough of a test, or do I have to give the Super Secret Handshake™ too?

ymarsakar

What does anyone of that have to do with the question I asked? If you don’t want to answer it, then be clear about it. I’m a Mad Scientist and I collect data. This isn’t the right timing for a “test”, however.

It depends on training. A carpenter will use a certain set of tools and will look at challenges from a certain perspective. A welder uses different tools and has a different perspective. A mason uses still different tools and has a completely different perspective. The only way we have to measure which is “correct” is to see which approach is most effective.

Which in turn varies according to the situation and the skill of the the craftsman.